it would thereafter be of no use to bet the merits of the death penalty just as it is no use of betting the merits of prohitting abortion." you stepped on two big issues there; right? >> guest: yeah. now, what you are talking about there is the other big thee -- theoretical issues raised by the book. one is textual, and we talk about that, and the other is originalism. what that says is that the text ought to be given the meaning it had when it was adopted, when it was enacted, or when it was ratified in the case of the constitution. thus, the words, quote, cruel and unusual punishments, in the 8th amendment should have the meaning what they were intended to have by the people who ratified it. it was clear when that 8th amendment was ratified, the death penalty was not considered to be prohibited. indeed, the death penalty existed in all the states, and it was the only penalty for a felony so for somebody today to say that somehow the american people have prohibited the states by ratifying the constitution, they have prohibited the states from applying the death punishment. i don't know